Michel Guimond

[Air Transportation, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the Minister of Transport says he wants to introduce a bill to change the legislative framework, while on the other the Prime Minister is saying that there must not be any change because this is solely up to the shareholders of Air Canada. Is there not a contradiction here?

[Air Transportation, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the future of air travel in Canada goes, there are two offers on the table: one a legal one from Air Canada, and the other an illegal one from Onex, which would require the law to be changed before it could be entertained.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Are we to understand from the statement made by the Prime Minister on Monday that it is up to Air Canada's shareholders to decide, and that his government is prepared to change the law if Air Canada's shareholders chose to accept the Onex offer?

[Air Transportation, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have kept repeating for 10 days that they are setting five or six conditions, depending on who is talking, for any merger or takeover in the air transportation sector.

How can we believe that the government will ensure that its conditions are strictly followed, since the minister is not even prepared to ensure that the existing act is complied with?

[Air Transportation, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Air Canada Pilots Association filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency regarding the agreement linking American Airlines and Canadian International Airlines, and more specifically the provision providing that the American carrier has a veto over any major decision, including takeovers or mergers affecting Canadian International Airlines.

This basically means that American Airlines has a veto over any possible agreement between Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.

Does the Minister of Transport really believe that this arrangement complies with the National Transportation Act, which provides that foreign interests cannot in effect control more than 25% of an air carrier?

[Air Transportation, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the president of Onex, Mr. Schwartz, also said that the delays imposed by the Competition Bureau would, in his opinion, be too long.

Can the minister tell us whether or not, and regardless of the opinion of the president of Onex, this transaction will be reviewed by the Competition Bureau?

[Air Transportation, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the Onex issue, the Minister of Transport is now prepared, after having suspended application of the Competition Act and after having refused to let the transport committee sit during the summer, to set aside the 10% ownership rule.

Is the strange behaviour of the minister in this matter dictated by the cozy relationship that exists between Onex and his government?

[Income Tax Act, October 14th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in employment).

Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to allow persons employed as mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools required for their work which they provide, if it is a condition of their employment.

This bill is at the same stage and in the same form as was Bill C-502 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 36th Parliament, and I am requesting that it be reinstated in the order of precedence.

I would remind hon. members that this bill was a votable item. I would remind the government House leader that, in the rather chaotic end of session last June 10, I had to cut 20 minutes off my speech. He had then given me his consent to have another 20 minutes to speak.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Air Transportation, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is waiting to hear something about the strategic issue of the airline industry in Canada.

Why has the government chosen to remain silent about this in the throne speech, when it has found something to say about all sorts of matters that are none of its business?

[Air Transportation, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister suspended the Competition Act, the airline industry has been in crisis.

Yet nowhere in the throne speech is there any mention of the serious problem facing the industry, particularly in Quebec, where thousands of jobs are at stake.

Will the government tell us why it has absolutely nothing to say in the throne speech on this topic, when this is something that actually comes under its jurisdiction?

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-502, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in employment), be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which I introduced in the House in order to raise an issue that has been around too long and is harmful to the growth of an essential sector of Canadian and Quebec industry, namely auto mechanics.

I introduce this bill on behalf of all the women and men who work as auto mechanics and have been calling for this bill for some years now.

Mr. Speaker, you are a democratically elected member of parliament, as I and every one of the 301 members of this House are. We all know that when we are campaigning and visit various car dealerships and garages, the mechanics frequently raise the issue of having a tax deduction for the cost of purchasing tools.

I am calling for the co-operation of the House for I believe that there is nothing partisan about this legislation in the least. The bill is presented with no malice and no ulterior motive, and I trust that my colleagues of all parties will subscribe to it.

I take care to point out that it concerns mechanics and not the broader issue of the automobile, because I would need a number of hours more in order to explain the negative effects Quebec has felt since the implementation of the auto pact.

In this regard, I will simply say that since its implementation a number of years ago, this trade agreement with United States has benefited Ontario only. Given that 97% of automobile assembly takes place in Ontario, clearly the auto pact benefited Ontario. It explains in large measure the difference in the rates of unemployment between Quebec and Ontario.

We are not talking here about automobile mechanics in the true and literal sense of the word. Instead, we are talking about men and women who, day in day out, slog under automobile hoods in often difficult working conditions.

There is winter when they have to work under cars with salt, snow or slop literally running down their faces. These men and women slog, their hands covered in grease, in an effort to repair what many people—often the poor—consider one of their most valuable possessions. For many people, their only possession—when it is not borrowed from the bank—is a car. These men and women must be encouraged, and this is the intent of this bill.

I say cars represent one of the most valuable possessions because of the major financial investment that their purchase or lease represents for Canadian and Quebec households.

We want to be able to make use of this investment, which we pay back at the end of each month to the bank, for a long time. This is why everyone wants cars to be well maintained and the necessary repairs made, hence the absolute necessity of being able to count on trained, competent and motivated mechanics to work on their cars and trucks.

As things now stand, it is difficult for these mechanics to be able to work under ideal conditions because of the high cost of buying the tools they need.

Since my time is running out, I will conclude by saying that I am counting on all members of the House to support this bill. These men and women are asking the government to allow them to deduct from their income the cost of buying their tool set, which can run from $5,000 to $40,000.

Ultimately, what we want is for all of society to benefit.